Month: January 2009

An Austrian company, Maselli, sells clothing under its brand WELLNESS. It has the trade mark registered for clothing in class 25 and also in classes 16 (for printed matter) and class 32 (for alcohol free drinks). It gave away bottles of a non-alcoholic drink bearing the WELLNESS brand, but never sold the drinks independently of the clothing.

On application by Silberquelle, a producer of alcohol free drinks, the ECJ has ruled that affixing the mark to goods, which are given away free of charge to purchasers of other goods, is not genuine use of the trade mark for the free goods in the EU.

That is, it should follow that Maselli’s mark will be revoked.

Here, of course, there has to be use as a trade mark and the use (as a trade mark) has to be in good faith see s. 92 and Gallo v Lion Nathan

As the IPKat asks, what happens to a newspaper’s trade mark where the newspaper is given away free?

Ever since the old Irish case about “Golden Pages” TM, where a classified directory was given away for free, but contained paid advertising, we have thought the trade mark was being used in the course of trade (or in more modern parlance, in good faith as a trade mark). Wonder if that’s still the case?

Like this:

The dispute resolution panel’s decision in the USA’s complaint against China’s rules on enforcement, “Measures affecting the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights” (DS362) (background here) has been published.

There’s a range of commentary around the web. The IPKat reproduces the conclusions and, applying sophistaKatted Euro reading between the lines, scores it at 3-all.

Intellectual Property Watch’s summary here. According to the USTR, the US won.

Like this:

In Australia (since the famous McCabe v BAT case (overturned on appeal), of course, we know them as “document retention” policies.

In the US, a Federal District Court judge has ruled that Rambus cannot enforce a patent relating to DRAM technology as a result of its policy, implemented in 1998, of destroying documents where the court held Rambus should have known litigation was likely.

A different judge, in the District of Northern California, apparently took the opposite view.

On 15 January 2009, the European Commission commenced new proceedings against Microsoft alleging that Microsoft was abusing its dominant position in the market by tying Internet Explorer to the Windows operating system:

According to the Commission:

The evidence gathered during the investigation leads the Commission to believe that the tying of Internet Explorer with Windows, which makes Internet Explorer available on 90% of the world’s PCs, distorts competition on the merits between competing web browsers insofar as it provides Internet Explorer with an artificial distribution advantage which other web browsers are unable to match. The Commission is concerned that through the tying, Microsoft shields Internet Explorer from head to head competition with other browsers which is detrimental to the pace of product innovation and to the quality of products which consumers ultimately obtain. In addition, the Commission is concerned that the ubiquity of Internet Explorer creates artificial incentives for content providers and software developers to design websites or software primarily for Internet Explorer which ultimately risks undermining competition and innovation in the provision of services to consumers.

Apparently, Microsoft has 8 weeks to reply.

Microsoft’s initial press release notes that the Statement of Objections served by the Commission specifically states that the US settlement with the DOJ in 2002 (Wikipedia here) does not make the inclusion of Internet Explorer in Windows lawful under EU law. Other than that it is fairly bland, as you would expect, stating that “We are committed to conducting our business in full compliance with European law.”

The convolutedly named The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has issued a consultation paper for industry on the Digital Economy Future Directions.

Apparently, the consultation draft arises from workshops held in August and September 2008.

There is considerable useful detail about the state and composition of the digital economy in Australia and questions on a range of important issues are posed. In connection with the regulatory framework issues, the following questions are raised:

Should the existing copyright safe harbour scheme for carriage service providers be broadened?

Does Australia’s copyright law unreasonably inhibit the operation of basic and important internet services? If so, what are the nature of such problems and practical consequences? How should these be overcome?

Is there non-copyright legislation that is directly relevant to digital economy businesses that create uncertainty or barriers?

One might have thought, at a minimum, that the scope of the so-called copyright ‘safe harbors’ should be expanded from the indecipherable ‘carriage service providers’ at least to the extent of ‘service providers’ permitted under the Free Trade Agreement (see art. 17.11.29). One might also speculate that it would be preferable to adopt a global framework for such service provider liability rather than adopting inconsistent and contradictory regimes for different subject matter such as copyright and defamation etc.

The paper specifically excludes from its scope questions about the National Broadband Network.

Like this:

IP Australia calls on all Australian users of the PCT to complete WIPO’s online survey:

Australian users of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) can make their views known by participating in a survey being run by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the body that administers the PCT. The comprehensive survey covers all aspects of the PCT from electronic filing to search and examination.